gsm-en

tl;dr

What?! Come on, you're an investigative journalist. How do you want to investigate if you have no idea how the known parts of the story developped? Start reading, and don't stop before you know what I know; then go from there.



On Fri, 6/26/15, [...] wrote:
Subject: Are you ready to 'stir up the sh**' in your own nest?
To: [...]
Date: Friday, June 26, 2015, 5:40 PM


Please make sure to pass this message on to some journalist who has a solid understanding of telecom issues, plus is mentally flexible enough not to automatically believe that 'american is best' (and able to follow a chain of thoughts even if worded by a non-native speaker)


Hello

I have a matter here that has kept me busy for almost 20 years now, because in 1997 was the first time I felt evidence, in the USA, that something was going on and going wrong - in the mobile phone sector, and gradually getting a global impact. Since then, things have only gone from bad to worse.

You see, until the '90s, the world's countries all had their own mobile phone systems. This all changed when europeans developped the new digital GSM standard, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM,

which - after having been introduced in Europe - was also adopted by the other three non-american continents - Australia/New Zealand, Asia (at that time without Japan and South Korea, which were later integrated through 3G) and Africa. The only continent where nothing seemed to move were the Americas.

Finally, GSM made it also into the USA and Canada (Latin America followed a bit later), under vicious attacks of its 'patriotic' detractors. I spent a few months there in '97 and remember malicious tv commercials attacking alleged shortcomings of GSM, compared to 'superior' american technology.

So much about the network-related side of the story, which will no longer keep us busy here. There is a second component, and that's the terminals and their accessories - and here is where investigations would be needed. Let me explain.

While transmission and switching was becoming digital and internationally compatible, the terminals were also getting smaller and smaller. European makers - mostly Ericsson and Nokia - developped small handsets, plus car kits for them. (External antennas were easily available, as were radio workshops to do the practical work on your car.) You can see one such car kit here:

http://pro-mobile-internet.net/eur-cellphone.jpg

The phone model is an Ericsson 888; the accessories are, clockwise from top left, a loudspeaker, a blackbox, a data cable (for laptop connection to phone modem), a microphone - and (most importantly) a cradle with an antenna contact (top left inside the cradle). This meant (after the car kit had been mounted correctly) that, once you laid your phone into the cradle, it became tantamount to a conventional carphone, but retractable. Most of all, it's antenna was not freely radiating inside the car, but the high-frequent energy ('the waves') were transported correctly from (downlink) and to (uplink) the external antenna, while the phone's antenna was switched off. *This makes all the difference.*

This is the physically correct solution, in contrast to having a wildly radiating phone inside one's car, as a car is something like a Faraday cage. See also these 2 authoritative statements:

http://pro-mobile-internet.net/ant.jpg

http://pro-mobile-internet.net/acma3jpg

The first one was made by an english network operator and is a little biased; you'll find a pertaining rectification attempt on page 1 of the main website next to this statement - thus

enhttp://pro-mobile-internet.net/en1.htmlAnker

dehttp://pro-mobile-internet.net/de1.htmlAnker

The second is by the Australian Communications and Media Authority,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Communications_and_Media_Authority

So we should agree, shouldn't we: For correct phoning conditions inside a car, you need a car kit and an external antenna. The antenna ought to be conected to the phone through a plug and a socket ('galvanic coupling'), because only there will you have a transmission efficiency of some 100 %. (Today, you only can get a few car kits, and they only offer 'inductive coupling', which means the phone antenna's wire loop lies on top of a likewise wire loop in the cradle - with an efficiency of some 70 %. Not as good as galvanic, but still much better than a freely radiating phone inside one's car. I'll return to that towards the end.)

So yes, everything almost perfect then, no? You would think so. But then something unexpected - and so far unexplained - happened. While car kits and antennas were easily available in Europe and Australia/New Zealand (I don't know about Asia and Africa), no such thing was on offer in North America. I should know, because back in '97, I bought a local (1900 MHz) GSM phone there, and of course I also wanted to buy a car kit and an antenna. But nothing was available. It gets worse: My phone - a Nokia (forgot the model), which corresponded to its european counterpart (900 + 1800 MHz) which I also had, did also have the antenna contact needed for the cradle - but it turned out that it was not connected inside the phone (!!). So the antenna contact was a dummy only - cheating. Do you blame me for thinking that something sinister was going on?

I returned to Europe in '99 and almost had forgotten the whole story. Then America's long arm reached us also there: One day - I think it was around 2003 -, evidence was growing that car kits were no longer available, and the same was true for external antennas. Likewise, radio workshops did no longer tend to private customers - only government agencies and big business.

So there we were: From professional mobile phones, we were dumbed down like americans - we got freely radiating phones inside our cars, and so (through the intentional, artificial removal from the market of some small yet essential accessories) the professional GSM communication system had been reduced into some kind of 'CB radio 2.0'. Why did our superior industry follow the - what seems to be - diktats from Washington? We wouldn't dump a Mercedes because you want us to have a Chrysler instead, would we?!

And googling for related terms, I can see that these few years have been enough to make almost everyone forget what culture of quality we once had, and that it has all been lost under the unexplained squashing of the american steamroller. Not least your own people suffer from the consequences - and their patent ignorance, when they (true to your autistic traditions) try to re-invent the wheel and make their own antennas, buy boosters (snake oil; prohibited in Australia) and just keep on whining. There must be a certain percentage of your population with a high-frequent education. Plus, there are amateur radio operators, who also need a licence based on proven high-frequency knowledge. Where is the outcry from any of these people?!?

Ok, I think you might have got the point by now. Please do also read the website at

http://pro-mobile-internet.net/,

which consists of 2 pages (plus a video page), to round it off.

If you have read attentively and thought parallel to me, then one thing (at least - if there's more, do ask) should be open - and that is the question, what is he complaining about, if that english network operator and australian government agency recommend using a car kit and an external antenna, then everyone can decide for himself? Well, not quite. In fact, if we could decide for ourselves, I wouldn't have taken the effort to write this in the first place.

You may remember that, further up, I explained the difference between a galvanic and an inductive car kit, and that the former is preferable to the latter, because the efficiency rates there are 100 and 70 % - so galvanic is perfect, while inductive is a compromise. There are no more galvanic car kits available, because phones do no longer come with the necessary contacts that would enable them to harmonise with a galvanic car kit - therefore the inductive workaround. And then the impression grows that external antennas are harder and harder to get. Not to forget that radio workshops refuse to tend to private customers (which however is not an insurmountable obstacle).

Are you still the 'land of the free'? Is the 1st amendment still valid? Do you dare to find, then attack presumed sinister backers, to get the truth to the light of day?

***************************************************************

There is reason to assume that the american FCC has its fingers in it. So I had the following correspondence with them:

From: [...]
To: Tom Wheeler, FCC
Cc: [...]
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 9:26 PM
Subject: Lacking external antennas for mobile phones: We deserve a reply - and expect it to be published

Cc recipients: Please spread the message

Two questions to you regarding in-car mobile phones:

1. Why have you (or who ever in your government was responsible, you will know) chosen to abolish external antennas for in-car mobile phones, at least for the general public, although the laws of physics clearly say you must have one?

2. Why did you force the rest of the world to follow your 'model', and how exactly did you do that?

Prior to responding, you may wish to consult

http://pro-mobile-internet.net/

----------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Wheeler, FCC
To: [...]
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 10:27 PM
Subject: RE: Lacking external antennas for mobile phones: We deserve a reply - and expect it to be published

Thank you for your e-mail to Chairman Tom Wheeler regarding external antennas. On behalf of Chairman Wheeler, the Federal Communications Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) is preparing information to address your inquiry. You will receive this information separately. We appreciate your reaching out to Chairman Wheeler for assistance and wish you the very best.

----------------------------------------------------------------

From: [...]
To: Tom Wheeler, FCC
Cc: [...]
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: Lacking external antennas for mobile phones: We deserve a reply - and expect it to be published

Thank you.

It is being suggested that you use this opportunity to revise your decision, because given the laws of physics, it is hard to see how you could possibly justify it?

Most of all, would you kindly start abroad, because it is clearly not your business to decide how other countries organise their own mobile phone usage.

Once this has been achieved, you should then actually continue in the US (and Canada, which seems to follow you kind of automatically), because GSM is a *global* system - so no space for local specialties - , as its name implies.

Again, do make sure you have read and understood every sentence at

http://pro-mobile-internet.net/ (2 pages)

before replying.

----------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 8/5/15, FCC wrote:
Subject: [...] FCC Consumer Center response from representative [...]
To: [...]
Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2015, 5:37 PM

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC. Thank you for your e-mail to Chairman Tom Wheeler regarding Cell Phone Boosters. Consumer Signal Boosters are designed to be used "out of the box" by individuals to improve their wireless coverage within a limited area such as a home, car, boat, or recreational vehicle. The FCC recently adopted new rules to improve signal booster design so these devices won't cause interference to wireless networks. The FCC also adopted new rules about what cell phone users need to do before using a signal booster. Learn about these new requirements in the Signal Boosters FAQ.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/signal-boosters/faq.html [no longer operational]
I hope you find this information helpful.
[...]

----------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 8/5/15, [...] wrote:
Subject: Here we go again...
To: Tom Wheeler, FCC
Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2015, 6:37 PM

You avoid the issue, as could be expected. You drivel about the alleged usefulness of boosters, maybe because you have a booster industry in your country pressurising you, but avoid mentioning how necessary it is, according to the laws of physics, to have (a car kit and) an external antenna for a cell phone operated inside a car, because a car is a near-Faraday cage.
Let me again quote the network operator

http://pro-mobile-internet.net/ant.jpg

and the government agency

http://pro-mobile-internet.net/acma3.jpg,

both from

http://pro-mobile-internet.net/en1.html,

confirming what I say - as if this were necessary.

Or would you maybe rather confess why you keep on lying towards people, and through your global 'smartphone' (which ultimately is infantile, kitschy american trash) onslaught on a worldwide scale? Does it make you feel good dumbing down people? What do you think about galvanic car kits for handheld phones as we used to have them in Europe until about 2003, see

http://pro-mobile-internet.net/eur-cellphone.jpg -

from that same webpage ( http://pro-mobile-internet.net/en1.html )?

Wouldn't you agree that the whole thing reminds a bit of Chrysler vs Mercedes, or quality vs qualität (same word, but not the same philosophy) - only that in the 'smartphone' case, quality has (so far) unfortunately kept the upper hand over qualität?

Let me make this clear: We want to end your mischief also in this field, as we did in the automotive sector (among others), and I hope indeed the last word hasn't been spoken here yet.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Deem for yourself...

en Back to previous pageAnkericom de Zurück zur vorigen seiteAnkericom